Project Reality Forums

Well pretty funny is that there is a Russian T-90 tank already disabled because I killed the driver that was scouting out. I have an engineer kit and placed the C4 on the tank I stepped away to the preferable distance before I detonated. I get compromised because The tank gunner see me so I instantly detonate it while the blast kills me 60 meters away and The tank is almost not smoking at all. Now that is a problem.

From 8.5 to now C4 should have a little more reward for the great humiliation that you succeeded in doing to tanks and not have a very disappointing moment.

Please wait until you have sufficient post count to post in the suggestions forum.

IRL, C-4 is often used in demolition charges such as the M183 and M112. The Demolition charge M183 is used primarily in breaching obstacles or demolition of large structures where large charges are required.


Not to breach MBT Tank armor. There's a reason why it's issued to demo kits, not used for 1337 anti-tank ambush. Use the proper tool for the job. Use C4 for clearing obstructions like Walls, Doors, firebases, etc.

Dev1200 wrote:Please wait until you have sufficient post count to post in the suggestions forum.

Project Reality Forums - Forum Rules

Section one, vi

If I did not have enough posts for suggestions then the forum would have redirected me. That was not a suggestion but feedback on an existing weapon in PR or else it would be in suggestions.

Dev1200 wrote:IRL, C-4 is often used in demolition charges such as the M183 and M112. The Demolition charge M183 is used primarily in breaching obstacles or demolition of large structures where large charges are required.


Not to breach MBT Tank armor. There's a reason why it's issued to demo kits, not used for 1337 anti-tank ambush. Use the proper tool for the job. Use C4 for clearing obstructions like Walls, Doors, firebases, etc.

But really people at a squad level were also not impressed for the C4. Some wall are destructible but usually the tank shoots through them first. The only reason a guy lays down C4 now is a triggered booby trap for light targets or toss them around corners and then detonate them for enemy infantry. Most people would disagree that C4 does not destroy MBT's when a TOW has less explosive ordnance.

Next time put a mine under the tank and then hit it with the C4. I've heard the C4/IED will make a vehicle move a bit and detonate the mine.

badmojo420 wrote:Next time put a mine under the tank and then hit it with the C4. I've heard the C4/IED will make a vehicle move a bit and detonate the mine.

That seems very hilarious to do.

But That would take to long and the mine has a cool down to activate and using two hard hitting things for one thing is a waste.

BadGuy wrote:That seems very hilarious to do.

But That would take to long and the mine has a cool down to activate.

Of course it's not ideal, but if you find yourself in the same situation, that's a possible way to dispose of the tank.

That tactic hasnt worked since v0.5 on Steal Thunder

Still, it's quite a fair amount of C4. It should do more damage to things.

qaiex wrote:Still, it's quite a fair amount of C4. It should do more damage to things.

Exactly. A C4 charge on top of a T72's or T90's engine block (behind the turret) would screw it up pretty good. Not to mention C4 would break its tracks as well I'm sure.

Or they could just code in the ability to shoot the optics on armored vehicles, rendering them useless.

BadGuy wrote:Project Reality Forums - Forum Rules

Section one, vi

If I did not have enough posts for suggestions then the forum would have redirected me. That was not a suggestion but feedback on an existing weapon in PR or else it would be in suggestions.

1. Am I disrespecting you by stating the facts? I didn't mean to insult you. Just giving you a heads up for what admins say to other people.

2.This is the feedback thread, not the suggestion thread. If it was the suggestion thread, it would say you have to have more posts back when you made this thread when you didn't have enough. You need 25 IIRC. Feedback is giving your opinion about game elements, IE balance issues.. Suggestions are what you would like to fix or add or remove. Are you not suggesting that C4 be more powerful?



And C4 already does enough damage. IF you want to kill a tank, use a mine. If you want to disable it, use C4. There's no point to give non-insurgents a powerful IED clone.

This is how you use C4. and the trick is to use lots of it, the C4 puch into C4 is old news, it works rarely and is only used when there's absolutley no other option, cause it may not even work.

YouTube - Ambushers Alley-Project Reality <<proper C4 use

Dev1200 wrote: If you want to disable it, use C4. There's no point to give non-insurgents a powerful IED clone.

I think he means that he couldnt even disable the tank with C4.

Sgt.BountyOrig wrote:I think he means that he couldnt even disable the tank with C4.

If it could IRL, I think the DEV team would have made it like that.

C4 in the quantity's that PR have are a very small amount, small amounts of Plastic explosives are used as a cutting tool for making hole in walls blowing doors off and initiating larger explosions, besides blowing up a bridge requires very little explosives from an engineering perspective

an artillery ied should be apropriate for that job right? no, i putted one on street, an apc drive over it i blowed it up, the apc even smoked. ps: al basrah heavy apc

dtacs wrote:Exactly. A C4 charge on top of a T72's or T90's engine block (behind the turret) would screw it up pretty good. Not to mention C4 would break its tracks as well I'm sure..

Definately, that block of high explosives would debliterate (no, it's not a real word...) tank treads if it was placed in the right spot.

dtacs wrote:Or they could just code in the ability to shoot the optics on armored vehicles, rendering them useless.

That is the best idea that I have read in two weeks...but aren't those optics behind some kind of transparent bullet resistant material (I don't know, just asking)?

Put 8 C4s and it will go down.

In my opinion the pack of C4 you are carrieing as Engineer could definately take out a tank if placed correctly. As mentioned before, if you would simply place it on top of the tank, somewhere between the turret and the hull, it would end at least in rendering the turret immovable furtheron. I don't know, where the ammunition is placed in a T-90, but if it's placed similar to the ammunition in an Abrams, it could eventually blow up, too, ending in a devastating result for the tank.

If I'm not correct and C4 can't harm a tanks hull, I think the shock created by the detonation right on the hull could definately harm the crew, right?

Darknecron wrote: That is the best idea that I have read in two weeks...but aren't those optics behind some kind of transparent bullet resistant material (I don't know, just asking)?

It isn't the bullet going through which is what would screw it up, its the shatter through the glass which would make it impossible to identify targets through.

Plus it would be a little OP'd considering an infantryman could make a tank/APC useless by shooting its optics...they are small on the T-62/T-72/T-90, but on the Abrams its a big target.